# FILED July 18, 1997 Cecil W. Crowson Ap pellate Cou rt Clerk TENNESSEE TEACHERS CREDIT UNION,) ) Plaintiff/Appellee, ) Davidson Cir cuit ) Trial No. 95C-3004 ) VS. ) ) ANITA ORR, ) Appeal No. ) 01A01-9701-CV-00005 Defendant/Appellant. )

IN THE COURT OF AP PEALS OF

TENNESSEE MIDDLE SECT ION AT NASHV ILLE
APPEALED FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF DAVIDSON COUNTY, AT NASHVILL E, TENNESSEE
HONORABL E WALTER C. KURTZ, JUDGE

ANI TA ORR P.O. Box 198152 Nashville, TN 37219 PRO SE FOR DEFENDANT/APPELL ANT T. LARRY EDMONDSON, #5601 808 Broadway , Second Floor Nashville, TN 37203 ATTORNEY FOR PLAI

NTIFF/APPEL

LEE


### APPEAL DISM ISSED

HENRY F. TODD PRESIDING

JUDGE, MIDDL

E SECTION

CONCUR: SAMUEL L . LEWIS, JUDGE BEN H. CANTRELL , JUDGE,-2-

TENNESSEE TEACHERS CREDIT UNION,) ) Plaintiff/Appellee, ) Davidson Cir cuit ) Trial No. 95C-3004 VS. ) ) ANITA ORR, ) Appeal No. ) 01A01-9701-CV-00005 Defendant/Appellant. ) 

### O P I N I O N

Th is appeal is from a judgment in favor of the ca ptioned plaintiff in a suit to recover the amount due upon a loan secured by a lien upon an automobile. This background and nature of the judgmen t under r eview a re as fo llows:

On August 18, 1995, the plaintiff caused to be issued an

“Imm ediate Po ssession Wa

rrant” from the General Sessions Court. The warrant contained the following oath: I, T. La rry Edmondso n , Plaintiff(s), Plaintiff’s at to rn ey, do hereby

make oath that, according to the affia nt’s information and belie

f, the Pla

intiff is en titled to the posses sion of 1993 Chevy Camero (sic), VI N #2G1FP22P9P2103267, the va l ue of which is $10,500.00, because : breach of contr

act. A copy of any

writing upon which the Plaintiff’s right of possession is founded is attached hereto. The Defendant has or detains the property , which was notsubject to such seizure, detention, or execution, wherefore Plaintiff demands the possession thereof. I further make oath that I am entitled to a Writ of Possession upon the filing of this warrant because: UNDERLI

NE APPLICAB LE CLA USE) (1) At least fi ve da ys prior to the filing of this warrant I gav e Def

endant notice, together with a copy of this warrant and the attachme nts hereto, by c ertified mail, that I would appeal beforethe Metropolitan General Sessions Court of Davidson Co un ty, Tennessee, in Courtroom 11, Ben West Municipal Build ing, 100 James Robertson Pkwy. On Aug ust 18, 1995 at 9:00, which notice has either been received by

the Defendant or was mailed to him at the address shown in the attached contract.-3- ( 2) (a) That the property involved herein was obtained by fraud, misrepresentation, or theft, or that the Defe ndant is (b) concea lin g the p roperty, (c ) likely to remove it from the jurisdiction of the Cou

rt, (d) li kely to dispose of

th e p ro pe rt y, (e) endangering the proper ty by unusually hazardous use or, (f) se ri ou sl y im pa ir in g t he Pl ai nt if f’ s s ec ur it y in th e p ro pe rt y. Date: 8-18-1995 (Signature) (Signature) Affiant Deputy Clerk

Alth ough the oath states that a copy of the paper writing supporting plaintiff’ s r ight to immediate

possession is attachedto the oat h, such a writing is not inclu ded in

the rec ord befo

re this Court. However, the record does contain a c ertificate of title bearing the following notation: Date of first security

interest 3-25-94 First lien holder Tennessee Teachers Credit Union No other evidence of “right to immediate possession” is found in said c ertificate.

The war rant also containsa “Fiat

” dated A ugust 18 , 1995, and reading is as f ollows: FIAT TO THE CLE RK OF THE METROPOLI TAN GENERAL SESSIONS COURT OF DAVI DSON COUNTY: Upon the fi ling o f the f oregoi ng W arrant and upon the Plaintiff (s) giving bo nd a s required by la w in the penal sum of $10,500.00 Dollars, you wi ll issue a Writ of Possession directing the Sheri ff to take possessio n of th e wi thin described prop erty and deliv er it to the

Plaintiff (s) and y

ou will command the Sheriff

to summon the Defendant(s) to appear andansw er th

is War rant at suc h time as ma y b e fixe d , but within ten days of the date of service. Entered: 8-18-1995 (Signature) Judge Division ____ Metropolitan Ge ne ral Sessions Court
A “Writ of Possession” was issued by the Clerk on Aug ust 18, 1995.-4- The judgment, ent

ered on A ugust 31 , 1995, re ads as fo llows: Judgmentfor

the Plaintiff for $0 and

the costs of this suit, and for the possession of the pr oper ty d escribed in the wa

rrant. Unless Plaintiff has alrea dy sec ured possession thereof, the officer is directed to take the property described in the warrant outof the possessio n of the D efenda nt(s) and deliv er the sa

me to the Plaintiff(s). The P laintiff (s) shall dispose of

said propert y in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Uniform Commerci al Code a

nd shall notify

the Defe ndant(s) the amount to be cred ited against this judgment prior to the issuance of any

Writ of Execution. Entered: 8-31-95 (Signature) Judge, Division IV, Metropolitan Genera l Sessions Court The judgment bears the following notation: From which judgment deft p rayed a n appeal to the Circuit Court, which is granted upon Oath
. Entered: 9-8-95 (Signature) Judge, Division IV Metropolitan Genera l Sessions Court On June 5, 19 96, the fo llowing o rder wa s entered by

the Circu it Court: JUDGMENT This cause came on to be heard on May 1, 1996, upon the testimony of witnesses, proof submitted and argument

of counsel, it is the op i nion of this Court that a Judgment be entered against the Defend ant, An ita Orr, in the amount of $18,227.26 plus a re asonable attorne y’ s fees in the amount of $750.00 plus costsof this ca use all for which execution may issue after the Plaintiff sells the 1993 Chevro let Ca maro which secure s th e indeb tedness o wned by the Defe ndant in accord a nce with the contract which gives rise to the Plaintiff’s rights and the Uniform Commercial Code , and it further appears tha t the Defendant shall be given notice of the amount received from said sale and execution o n the deficiency

shall not issue for a period of 30 da ys whil e this Courtretains jurisdiction over this matter so that the Defend ant, Anita Orr, ma y c hallenge the reasonableness of the sale conducted by

the Plaintiff. Accordingly , it is so ORDERED.-5- An order th at adjudi cates f ewer tha n all the c laims or th

e right s and liab ilit ies of all the parties is not enforceable and is subject to revision at any time bef ore entry of final judgment adjudicating all the claims, rights and liabilities of the parties. T.R.A.P. Rule 3(a) , T.R.C.P. Rule 54.02

The above quoted order expressly re served the question of the reasonableness of the sa le of the chattel and the disposition or applicationof the proceeds. I t was therefore

not a fina l, appea lable judgmen t.

Thi s appeal is dismissed without prejudice to a further appeal after the entry of a

fina l , appeala ble judgment. Costs of this appeal are taxed a gainst the plaintiff/appellant. In event of a further appeal, the appe

llant may move this Court to consolidate the record of the pr esent ap peal with that of fu ture pro ceeding s to avoid d uplication of expens es.


### APPEAL DISMISSED.

_____________________________________ HENRY F. TODD PRESIDING

JUDGE, MIDDL

E SECTION

CONCUR:

_____________________________________ SAMUEL L . LEWIS, JUDGE

_____________________________________ BEN H. CANTRELL , JUDGE